Mrs. Alfred Hitchcock, in collaboration with Michael Hogan, has wrought wonders on Jerome K. Jerome's old morality play. She has cleaned up a lot of the deliberate simplicities in characterization, making the screen figures more convincingly down-to-earth and cutting away ruthlessly at their once flowery, didactic dialogue. She has strengthened the plot as well. So far, so good. One's only complaint is that in making the characters more realistic, she has slightly obscured their original labels. (Naturally, Jape Samuels, whom Jerome describes as "a Jew of the most objectionable type", is now completely omitted).
It's a pity that at this point, the screenwriters didn't leave well enough alone. Instead they have penned in a totally extraneous sequence aboard a Bank Holiday riverboat, which although it does open up the film agreeably, also dissipates the boarding-house claustrophobia so carefully built up and adds dimensions to the characters which are not quite consistent with what has gone before. This causes director Viertel to pull out all his surrealistic stops to get the film back on course. I must admit that I personally thrill to all this ultra-noirish atmosphere, but I understand that purists have cause to complain.
The performances of course are all-important in a play of this type. And frankly there are problems. Rene Ray has too sensitive a face for a Borstal slavey and it's hard to believe that such a beauty as Anna Lee could do no better than Mr. Wright. And whilst Cellier over-acts, Livesey is far too bland a hero and Sarner far too colorless a heavy. Fortunately, Turnbull, Nesbitt, Ward and Clare are all particularly right. Lehmann softens Miss Kite, but who will blame her? Allgood is simply a stock cameo.
So, all in all, the acting so far is on the balance. An outstanding performance in the lead role would tip the scales firmly in the right direction. Unfortunately, Veidt does not provide this lead. His "most difficult role" he once called it, but he does nothing with it. He just says in his lines in that sepulchral voice of his, and relies on his off-putting off-white make-up and Courant's lighting effects to give the character color. It doesn't work. He is neither one thing nor the other, neither man nor spirit. What a pity George Arliss was not cast. It would have been a perfect role for him. A lead character who straightens the other characters out. Arliss' forte. Why wasn't he cast?
All told, an interesting film, but a flawed one. It could have been even more dramatic and exciting than it actually is. And with less expense too! Needless to say, this film version did not capture the remotest fraction of the phenomenal success enjoyed by Jerome's 1908 stage play. (Although the critics hated it to a man, the play struck such a chord with the public that, allowing for inflation, it would still rank among the top ten most successful straight plays ever produced in London's West End).
It's a pity that at this point, the screenwriters didn't leave well enough alone. Instead they have penned in a totally extraneous sequence aboard a Bank Holiday riverboat, which although it does open up the film agreeably, also dissipates the boarding-house claustrophobia so carefully built up and adds dimensions to the characters which are not quite consistent with what has gone before. This causes director Viertel to pull out all his surrealistic stops to get the film back on course. I must admit that I personally thrill to all this ultra-noirish atmosphere, but I understand that purists have cause to complain.
The performances of course are all-important in a play of this type. And frankly there are problems. Rene Ray has too sensitive a face for a Borstal slavey and it's hard to believe that such a beauty as Anna Lee could do no better than Mr. Wright. And whilst Cellier over-acts, Livesey is far too bland a hero and Sarner far too colorless a heavy. Fortunately, Turnbull, Nesbitt, Ward and Clare are all particularly right. Lehmann softens Miss Kite, but who will blame her? Allgood is simply a stock cameo.
So, all in all, the acting so far is on the balance. An outstanding performance in the lead role would tip the scales firmly in the right direction. Unfortunately, Veidt does not provide this lead. His "most difficult role" he once called it, but he does nothing with it. He just says in his lines in that sepulchral voice of his, and relies on his off-putting off-white make-up and Courant's lighting effects to give the character color. It doesn't work. He is neither one thing nor the other, neither man nor spirit. What a pity George Arliss was not cast. It would have been a perfect role for him. A lead character who straightens the other characters out. Arliss' forte. Why wasn't he cast?
All told, an interesting film, but a flawed one. It could have been even more dramatic and exciting than it actually is. And with less expense too! Needless to say, this film version did not capture the remotest fraction of the phenomenal success enjoyed by Jerome's 1908 stage play. (Although the critics hated it to a man, the play struck such a chord with the public that, allowing for inflation, it would still rank among the top ten most successful straight plays ever produced in London's West End).